Mr. Co-Chair,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

1. We reaffirm that it is necessary to set clear and achievable priorities in our debates on the modalities for the implementation, key features, institutional arrangements and financing and specifying objectives and scope of its first cycle, key questions to be answered and primary target audiences.

2. We have before us a proposal by the Group of Experts to hold workshops as part of a possible sequence of decisions and tasks necessary to achieve the deadline of 2014, recommended in document 64/347, for the completion of the first cycle of the regular Process. That is one of many possible ways to establish that sequence of decisions. For those decisions to be mandated into action, the setting up of the institutional framework is required. That, then, should be our priority. Although workshops may prove useful in further defining the first phase of the Regular Process, the decision to convene them and their organization should be adopted and undertaken within the framework of the future institutional structure of the Regular Process.

3. The participation of Member States in the Regular Process is of utmost importance for the relevance, legitimacy and credibility of the process. For the G-77 and China, the decision making body of the Regular Process is the General Assembly (GA). The GA should thus consider the objective and scope, the findings and the periodic evaluations of the Regular Process and its products. Since it would be difficult for the GA to be assigned directly with the in-depth examination of those aspects, the institutional setup would include, as the management body, a formal Plenary Meeting open to all Members States

4. Such plenary meeting would review the products of the assessment cycles ("Assessment Reports") produced by the Group of Experts, based on which it would draft policy recommendations for the consideration of the GA. It could also provide interim reports, or status reports, to the GA on the work of the Regular Process. It would also be tasked with reviewing administrative matters pertaining to the organization of work of the Regular Process. A bureau of the plenary would be established to help organizing the work of the plenary.

5. In addition to plenary meetings open to the participation of all Member States, the new structure could rely on thematic working groups and a Secretariat hosted by DOALOS (according to Paragraph 182 of Resolution 64/71).

6. The Group of Experts will continue to provide the assessments to be considered by the Plenary of the Regular Process. The Plenary would draft recommendations to be considered by the General Assembly.

7. The mandate of the Group of Experts would correspond to the duration of an assessment cycle. The membership should include experts in disciplines relevant to the assessment of the state of marine environment, including socio-economic aspects. They would be appointed by member States according to the principle of equitable geographical distribution.

8. Two Working Groups would be established under the Group of Experts, tasked with preparing the Assessment Reports ("Assessment WG") and defining strategies and capacity-building programs ("Capacity WG"). The Assessment Reports should rely on the best available science. This feature justifies the need for a specific capacity-building-dedicated working group, as the enhancement of national capacities contributes notably to the establishment of a comprehensive network of scientific knowledge.

9. In accordance with the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Whole, convened pursuant to paragraph 57 of General Assembly resolution 63/111, the Secretariat of the Regular Process would be hosted by the Division of Oceans and Law of the Sea (DOALOS) of the Office of Legal Affairs of the UN, with the support of other UN agencies and programs.

10. We are convinced that this structure would enable the Regular Process to function as a platform for science-policy interface.

Thank you.